Discover the landmark Supreme Court judgement regarding the import of goods under the Foreign Trade Act. In this case, the High Court scrutinized the actions against M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. and Obron Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. The Appeals were dismissed based on the lack of interference required due to the quasi-judicial order conflicting with the legislative intent of the 1992 Act. Find out more about the implications of the repealed Act and how the savings clause under Section 20 was addressed in the judgement.
Issue
- The appellants need to show that the Act includes a savings clause to protect the quasi-judicial order issued by the Competent Authority under the Imports (Control) Order, 1986.
Also Read: Balancing Justice: Case Summary of C.P. No. 16/2017
Analysis
- Import of goods was not prohibited under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which differs from the order of 14.11.1986.
- The Competent Authority’s action against M/s. L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. was based on the Imports (Control) Order, 1986, Clause 8(1).
- Import of goods by Obron Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. in August 1997 was not in violation of the Act.
- The High Court correctly observed that the Act did not provide for the quasi-judicial order in this case.
- The High Court extensively examined Section 20 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 in response to the appellants’ argument.
- The High Court found that the show cause notice issued against the respondents based on a 1986 order by the Competent Authority was not valid under the 1992 Act.
- The quasi-judicial order from 1986 conflicted with the legislative intent of the 1992 Act, which allowed free import of the stated goods.
- Therefore, taking action against the respondents for importing the goods after the 1992 Act came into force was deemed unjust by the High Court.
- Any other interpretation would effectively validate a quasi-judicial order based on a repealed Statutory Order and Act.
Also Read: Interpreting Section 14 of the 2002 Act: Equivalence of CJM and CMM
Decision
- Appeals dismissed as they fail
- Pending applications disposed of
- Repeal and savings under Sections 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) of the Act mentioned
- No interference required based on the order
- Quasi judicial order under repealed Act not saved
- Not covered by savings clause under Section 20 of the Act
Also Read: Judgment by Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bhilwara Processors Ltd. vs. Department of Central Excise
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. T.R.MEHRA
Case Number: C.A. No.-002036-002038 / 2011
